Skip to content


Kannan Vs. Nilakandan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies;Limitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad337
AppellantKannan
RespondentNilakandan and anr.
Excerpt:
limitation - suit by trustee to recover temple lands--possession for twelve years by party claiming to be trustee. - - 1. the original uralan and one of the then karalars on 20th july 1868 assigned to the first respondent, in consideration of a money payment, the temple and the properties in suit, which were an endowment of the temple, on the terms that he should 'manage the temple affairs and enjoy with all freedom in perpetuity and cause the services to be performed. ' 2. this transaction was invalid, because a sale cannot be made of the urairna right, and possibly because the plaintiff, by whom in conjunction with one of the sellers the uraima right had been admittedly enjoyed, was not a party to the transaction......1868 assigned to the first respondent, in consideration of a money payment, the temple and the properties in suit, which were an endowment of the temple, on the terms that he should 'manage the temple affairs and enjoy with all freedom in perpetuity and cause the services to be performed.'2. this transaction was invalid, because a sale cannot be made of the urairna right, and possibly because the plaintiff, by whom in conjunction with one of the sellers the uraima right had been admittedly enjoyed, was not a party to the transaction. prom that date the first respondent has held possession of the temple and the properties in suit under the deed. this possession has been in fact that of a trustee, and if he has committed breach of trust he can of course be removed from office or be.....
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The original uralan and one of the then karalars on 20th July 1868 assigned to the first respondent, in consideration of a money payment, the temple and the properties in suit, which were an endowment of the temple, on the terms that he should 'manage the temple affairs and enjoy with all freedom in perpetuity and cause the services to be performed.'

2. This transaction was invalid, because a sale cannot be made of the urairna right, and possibly because the plaintiff, by whom in conjunction with one of the sellers the uraima right had been admittedly enjoyed, was not a party to the transaction. Prom that date the first respondent has held possession of the temple and the properties in suit under the deed. This possession has been in fact that of a trustee, and if he has committed breach of trust he can of course be removed from office or be held accountable for the profits if he has not properly applied them; but these are not the claims now made.

3. The plaintiff claims to recover possession for himself of the uraima right on the ground that the transfer of 20th July 1868 was invalid, and that claim is barred by Section 144, Schedule II of the Limitation Act.

4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs (first respondent's only).


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //